The Colombian Scientific Elite - Science Mapping and ... - arXiv

1

The Colombian Scientific Elite - Science Mapping and Bibliometric Outlook

Julián D. Cortésa,b; Daniel A. Andradec

aUniversidad del Rosario, School of Business and Management, Colombia

bFudan University, Fudan Development Institute, China

cIndependent, Colombia

2

Abstract

A well-established agenda on the research output, impact, and structure of global scientific elites such as

Nobel Prize laureates has generated interest in the scientific elites from developing countries. This study

deploys science mapping techniques to provide a comprehensive analysis of the output, impact, and

structure of the Colombian scientific elite, i.e., researchers awarded with the Alejandro Ángel Escobar

Foundation National Prize 1990-2020, known locally as the Colombian Nobel. Findings showed that the

Colombian scientific elite has a broader agenda than indexing titles in internationally renowned

bibliographic databases. The Colombian scientific elite also showed positive growth, which is an inverse

trend compared with Nobel laureate productivity. There were no noticeable changes in

productivity/impact before and after receiving the prize. Institutional collaboration within the Colombian

scientific elite displayed the highest betweenness (brokerage) role of world/local top-tier universities.

However, only two Colombian scientific elite members published an article with two Nobel Prize

laureates. Most of the research profiles reflected the national output priorities, but were found to diverge

from the national focus in respect of strategic research capacities. This study also conducted a

productivity and impact comparison with Nobel Prize laureates in science and economics by means of a

stratified random sample 1990-2020 via the composite indicator proposed by Ioannidis et al. The

interleaving of the Colombian scientific elite and Nobel Prize laureates ─ particularly between the 3rd and

2nd quartiles ─ enabled a more nuanced analysis of the local impact in the global scientific landscape.

1 Introduction

On a humorous note, Richard J. Roberts ─ Nobel Prize winner in physiology/medicine ─ outlined ten

simple rules to win a Nobel Prize and be part of the global scientific elite (GSE) [1]. Among these rules

were the following: work in the laboratory of a previous Nobel Prize winner; try to work in the

laboratory of a future Nobel Prize winner; or pick your family (i.e., Nobel laureates) carefully. For

developing countries such as Colombia, none of those rules are simple considering the null population of

Nobel laureates in science currently teaching/researching at a national university.

GSEs push the frontiers of knowledge. Yet, despite a well-established agenda [2–27],

researchers or scientific awardees from developing countries have been sidelined. Let us consider two

well-known examples: Nobel Prize laureates and highly-cited and productive institutions/researchers

[9,10,28,29]. First, seventy-seven percent of the Nobel Prize laureates in physics had US, German, UK,

French, or Russian citizenship [30]. In contrast, 2% had citizenships from developing countries such as

3

China, Pakistan, India, or Morocco [30]. Second, most of the world’s scientific wealth (i.e., research

output and citations) has been accumulated in a few premier institutions in developed countries [31–33].

Such staggering inequality is reflected in the fact that the top 1% of most-cited authors constitutes over a

fifth of all citations globally [34]. To understand why this is the case, it is necessary to look at the nature

of scientific elites through the lens of developing countries’ historical, economic, institutional, and

cultural contexts, research standards, and affiliations. [35–40].

Consider the two above-mentioned Noble Prize laureates from Colombia, which is one of the top

five countries in Latin America in total document output and among the top-fifty in total citations

worldwide 1996-2019 [41]. The Nobel Prize has been awarded to Gabriel García Márquez (literature) and

Juan Manual Santos (peace), but none in the science categories. Likewise, only one Colombian researcher

is listed in the 2020 edition of Clarivate’s Highly Cited Researchers: Olga Sarmiento, Universidad de Los

Andes [30,42]. Based on these standards, a Colombian scientific elite (CSE) is non-existent. Colombia

does, however, have its own Nobel Prize: the Alejandro Ángel Escobar Foundation National Prize

(AAEP) [43,44]. The organization’s founder ─ inspired by the Swedish inventor and his legacy ─ stated

that the AAEPs “are to be awarded for truly meritorious work that deserves the mark of excellence at

least within the cultural context of the country.” [45]. Each year the AAEF invites all researchers of

Colombian nationality ─ regardless of local or international affiliation ─ to submit their research for

assessment by the Foundation’s committee (i.e., peer-reviewed articles or books, master’s or Ph.D. thesis,

technical reports, independent research). If the document is multiauthored, the authors have to assign a

representative/coordinator, who will receive the prize money and a silver medal. The

representative/coordinator most be a native Colombian. This national recognition has been awarded

annually since 1955. There are three science categories [45]: 1) physics and natural sciences; 2) social

sciences and humanities; and 3) environmental sciences and sustainable development. There is an

honorable mention for each category if the jury decides so [45] and these acknowledged researchers are

considered members of the CSE (e.g., Salomón Hakim [neurosurgeon] in 1967 and 1974; and Ana María

Rey [physicist] in 2007).

The purpose of studying the CSE and scientific elites in developing countries in general is

to understand its performance and research and collaboration structures in comparison with the GSE. The

findings shed light on the research performance-impact standards and agenda between the global North

and South. They also provide an in-context assessment of outstanding local research [46–49] amid the

4

decreasing share of new Nobel Prize laureates from North America and an inverse trend from the Asia-

Pacific region [4]. To the best of our knowledge, no research has been conducted on the CSE or any other

developing country’s scientific elite using bibliometric techniques [50]. Accordingly, this study aims to

provide a comprehensive analysis of the output, impact, and structure of the CSE and draw a comparison

with the GSE. This inquiry is guided by the following research questions (RQs):

RQ1: Is the CSE more productive/cited before or after receiving the AAEP? [6,11,22,51,52]

RQ2: Does the CSE collaboration network have any participation in the GSE or world top-tier

institutions? [26,33,53]

RQ3: What are the research fronts of the CSE? [7], and

RQ4: Is the CSE light years away from the productivity and impact of the GSE? [31,36,54–56]

Following this introduction, section 2 reviews recent literature on GSEs. Section 3 outlines the data,

methods, and techniques implemented. The methods and techniques implemented are coauthorship

networks, both at the institutional and author levels; bibliographic coupling; and a comparative sample of

82 researchers using the composite indicator proposed by Ioannidis et al. [52]. The sample comprises 41

AAEPs and 41 Nobel Prize laureates. Section 4 presents the results to be discussed in section 5. Finally,

section 6 presents the conclusions, limitations, and future agenda.

2 Literature review

Research on the GSE is well-established in the informetrics literature [2–15,21–24,26,27,57–60]. For

example, a Boolean search on Scopus’s bibliographic database with the keyword “Nobel Prize” limited to

14 core journals on informetrics and research evaluation (e.g., Journal of Informetrics, Scientometrics,

JASIS&T) [54], returned 75 results. We limited the review to three areas of interest: 1) international

awards/prizes networks; 2) latest research on production and impact of the GSE; 3) and on the intellectual

and social structure of the GSE.

First, Zheng and Liu [18] developed a “co-awardees” network of significant international

awards/prizes according to awardees’ assessment, establishing a similarity between the Nobel Prize and

other awards/prizes awardees (e.g., Wolf, Lorentz, and Shaw awards/prizes). Subsequent work by Ma and

Uzzi [13] assembled a scientific prize network based on 3,000+ prizes and the careers of 10,000+

prizewinners over a 100-year period. They found that the number of prizes doubled every 25 years, that

the science hierarchy is becoming more vertical, and that having an awarded advisor is essential for

5

winning at least one prize. The winning of subsequent prizes, however, is more a matter of expanding

one’s own network.

Second, recent work on the GSE concluded that the business of predicting the next Nobel had

become a fruitless exercise since the laureates rank among the 500 most-cited authors after the 1970s

compared to those awarded in the early twentieth century and their contributions have been limited to

research niches rather than the discipline as a whole [22]. This was further refined by Ioannidis et al. [7],

who found that of the 114 domains investigated, only five (i.e., particle physics [14%], cell biology

[12.1%], atomic physics [10.9%], neuroscience [10.1%], and molecular chemistry [5.3%]) accounted for

52.4% of the Nobel Prizes awarded. Taking a closer look at the features of the Nobelists’ papers, Zhou et

al. [51] estimated that 74.7% were cited more than 500 times, innovative research was more cited than

theoretical and experimental methods, and most of the papers were published in journals with an Impact

Factor between 5-10. Ioannidis et al. [15,52] examined the most-cited biomedical researchers and

proposed a citation-based composite score assessment of 84,000+ highly-cited scientists in 12 fields.

Among their findings, a number of scientists stated that research related to progressive evolution (i.e.,

continuous progress; broader interest; greater synthesis) rather than revolution was the most characteristic

feature of a blockbuster paper. Based on the proposed composite score, many Nobelists ranked among the

top-1000 highly-cited authors, but would rank much lower if based solely on citations. Similarly, highly-

cited authors had published either none or very few influential papers as a first, single, or last author.

One of the most comprehensive studies on Nobelists’ careers [11] found that they were

productive from the outset (twice as many papers as a random scientist), showed a six-fold increase in

publishing hit papers (top 1% of rescaled 10-year citations) and published on average two hit papers.

Nevertheless, the overall career path before winning the prize is similar to that of other scientists. While

the laureates’ collaboration network did not increase after the Nobel Prize, it tended to be more consistent

in productivity and impact. Contrasting Nobeslists with highly-cited researchers, Kosmulski [6] the

only study that included the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel

argued that the virtue of publishing hot papers (0.1% of the top papers in the field in the past two years) is

not common among recent Nobel laureates while the number of scientists who have at least one highly-

cited paper substantially exceeds 100,000. Kosmulski [6] also found that Nobel Prize papers connect

topically diverse clusters of research papers [8]. Schlagberger et al. [33] highlighted US dominance at the

national and institutional level given that four US institutions hold most of the Nobelists in physics,

6

chemistry, and physiology (i.e., UC Berkeley, Columbia, MIT, and Princeton). While Nobelists are

mobile, they generally hail from the US, UK, Japan, and Germany.

Third, studies on the Nobelist collaboration network [26,61] found that laureates published fewer

papers, but with a higher than average citation, a feature further supported by Li et al. [11]. Nobelists tend

to play a brokerage role in the collaboration networks by building intellectual and social bridges and

exploiting structural holes. Jiang and Liu [61], for example, noted a high level of institutional inequality

across periods. The most connected institution during 1990-1940 was the Humboldt University; during

1941-1980 it was the University of Cambridge, and during 1981-2017 it was Harvard University, a

phenomenon outlined earlier [33].

Despite the considerable research already undertaken, the above literature review exposes two

major limitations. First, as noted by Zheng and Liu [18] and Ioannidis et al. [7], further studies are needed

that will incorporate other disciplines such as the social sciences and humanities. Second, since the study

by Schlagberger et al. [33] focused solely on US institutions, a broader landscape is needed to research

institutions in developing countries. To close these two gaps, this study includes researchers in social

sciences and humanities, environmental science and sustainable development, who for the most part are

affiliated with Colombian institutions. While the latter are not comparable to US institutions in terms of

global reputation, some of these Colombian institutions have garnered a regional reputation, particularly

in Latin America and the Caribbean (e.g., Universidad Nacional or Universidad de Los Andes) [62].

3 Materials and methods

3.1 Data

3.1.1 Colombian Scientific Elite

The CSE list was sourced from the AAEF website (2000-2020) and from a book published by the AAEF

(1990-1999) commemorating its half-century [50]. We decided to restrict our sample to the last 30 years’

awardees in light of Colombian researchers’ late involvement in publishing research articles in

international journals (since the early 1990, ~200 papers were published annually in the Science Citation

Index) [63]. We further restricted our sample to the leading author or representative in the case of multi-

authored documents. Table 1 presents the CSE sample of 87 awardees categorized by sex and award.

Female researchers have a 25.3% participation among the awardees, with the highest participation in

social sciences and humanities (SoSci) with 11.4%. In contrast, male researchers have 74.7% of the total

7

participation, the highest being in physics and natural sciences (PhySci) with 32.2%. While the issue of

sex differential among scientists lies beyond the scope of this study, it is worth noting that the differential

among AAEPs is similar to that among Nobel Prize winners. Evidence shows [64] that ten women were

awarded a Nobel Prize in the sciences between 2004-2019, which is the same number of awardees during

the first 100 years of Nobel history. Multiple causes have been cited to account for this discrepancy, such

as marital and maternity status, lack of role models, and a lack of interest in following an academic career

– all of which impacts both productivity and further research for women.

Appendix 1 presents the higher/last academic degree by university and country according to the

Colombian Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation platform for researchers’ curriculum:

CvLAC [65]. Thirty-one percent of researchers have completed an academic degree in the US and 28% a

Ph.D. in reputable universities such as Harvard, MIT, Yale, or Wisconsin-Madison. In contrast, 27.6%

have completed an academic degree in Colombia and 12.6% a Ph.D. in reputable Colombian universities

such as Nacional, Antioquia, Valle, or Los Andes.

Table 1 Colombian Scientific Elite by sex and AAEF award category

Total 87

CSE sex by category %

Female 25.3

Environmental sciences and sustainable development

– EnvSci 8.0

Social sciences and humanities – SoSci 11.5

Physics and natural sciences – PhySci 5.7

Male 74.7

Environmental sciences and sustainable development

– EnvSci 24.1

Social sciences and humanities – SoSci 18.4

Physics and natural sciences – PhySci 32.2

Source: [45,50].

3.1.2 Bibliographic data

Scopus was chosen over Web of Science (WoS) due to its broader journal coverage and researcher

participation from developing countries, particularly Colombia [40,66–68]. Based on the CSE list above,

we searched and sourced the complete profiles in Scopus for each author. Those with only one indexed

article were excluded. We also checked each author’s current or past affiliation in the CvLAC [65] to

avoid the inclusion of homonymous authors. The working sample of CSE with Scopus profiles consisted

of 41 researchers, ~47% of the preliminary CSE list displayed in Table 1. For multiple-year AAEP

awardees (e.g., Germán Poveda-2007, 2019), the first year was considered for related assessments (Figure

8

3). The CSE sample contains a similar sample of researchers compared to previous studies on non-Nobel

laureates (e.g., 29 recipients of the Derek John de Solla Prize Medal [69]).

Table 2 presents the bibliometric descriptives. Environmental sciences and sustainable

development (EnvSci) and physical sciences (PhySci) were the categories with the most profiles found in

Scopus. PhySci was the category with the highest number of articles, authors, and citations per document.

EnvSci, however, showed the highest annual growth rate and authors per article. The most relevant

periodical (most frequent) for SoSci was Revista de Estudios Sociales (Colombia – U. Andes), for EnvSci

Biotropica (Wiley), and for PhySci Physical Review A – Atomic Molecular and Optical Physics

(American Physical Society). This is consistent with the publishing and citation dynamics of the above

disciplinary categories: SoSci is oriented towards the publication of books/book chapters in local journals,

while PhySci-related disciplines tend to publish international research articles or conference proceedings

[70–73]. Articles (921) with 10+ authors [74] were excluded from the analysis. These were mostly from

medicine: 26%; earth and planetary sciences: 22.6%; and biochemistry, genetics and molecular biology:

18.6%. Such publications are difficult to assess since they could be either a product of publishing

agreements or highly collaborative authors with marginal research input [56]. Due to Scopus’ indexing

accuracy, we only analyzed articles published between 1996-2020 [66].

Table 2 Scopus author profiles and bibliometric descriptive of the CSE aggregated and by category 1996-2020

Category Profiles Documents Articles Annual

growth% Authors

Authors per

article

Citations

per article Most frequent journal

PhySci 19 1,206 1,025 2.25 1,776 1.47 55.1 Physical Review A - Atomic Molecular and

Optical Physics

EnvSci 14 485 439 6.67 735 1.52 26.4 Biotropica SoSci 10 38 31 <1 21 0.55 4.2 Revista de Estudios

Sociales

Total 41 1,731 1,195 2.97 2,532 1.18 28.6

Source: [45,50,65,75,76]. Note: EnvSci: environmental sciences and sustainable development; SoSci: social sciences

and humanities; PhySci: physics and natural sciences.

3.2 Methods and techniques

3.2.1 AAEP research topics

A semantic network was built based on each title of the awarded research document by category. The aim

was to explore the document titles and examine the shared meaning and interconnection between key

terms among titles [77]. A co-occurrence matrix was assembled to compute the number and direction of

unique-word co-occurrence after removing stop/period and non-informative words. Finally, a directed-

weighted semantic network was produced based on the co-occurrence matrix. Two network analysis

9

characteristics/metrics were computed: community detection; and betweenness. For the former, we

implemented the Blondel et al. [78] modularity appraisal algorithm, which gives a node’s capacity for

mediating the flow of information between multiple clusters [79]. The equation for the betweenness

calculation is:

𝐶𝐵(𝑝𝑘) = ∑𝑔𝑖𝑗(𝑝𝑘)

𝑔𝑖𝑗; 𝑖 ≠ 𝑗 ≠ 𝑘𝑛

𝑖<𝑗 . Source: [80].

where gij is the shorter path that links nodes pi and gij(pk) is the shorter path that links nodes pi and pjpk.

The higher the value, the higher its betweenness.

3.2.2 Output and citations

We outlined a descriptive section on articles and citations by category. We also explored the annual

citation per article of the top three most-cited researchers per category before and after receiving the

AAEP.

3.2.3 Institutional collaboration and coauthorship

Bibliographic data of the CSE profiles was processed with bibliometrix for R [76,81]. Once this data has

been processed and converted into the corresponding objects, preprocessing and cleaning are carried out

in order to unify the authors’ names and affiliations. Macro (density and average path length), meso

(community detection), and micro (betweenness centrality) indices were analyzed. Density indicates the

degree to which both authors and institutions are connected (i.e., the number of connections that exist

compared to the number of connections that could exist). The equation for the density calculation is:

𝑑𝑒𝑛 = 2𝐿/𝑛(𝑛 − 1). Source: [82].

where L is the number of links and n is the number of nodes. The average path length computes the

average number of steps along the shortest path for every pair of nodes (i.e., authors, institutions) in a

given network. The equation for the average path length calculation is:

𝑙𝐺 =1

𝑛(𝑛−1) ∑ 𝑑(𝑣𝑖 , 𝑣𝑗)𝑖≠𝑗 . Source: [83].

Where 𝑑(𝑣𝑖 , 𝑣𝑗) is the length of the shortest path that exists between two nodes. We used the Leiden

algorithm to identify communities (i.e., clusters) [84]. Betweenness equation and interpretation are given

in 3.2.1 above.

10

3.2.4 Bibliographic coupling

A bibliographic coupling connects two documents if a common item was cited and appeared within both

lists of references [85]. This facilitates an analysis of the clustering of shared items between documents

and an investigation of disciplinary fronts that highlights how academic knowledge is shared [86–88].

This technique moderately outperforms other science mapping techniques used to identify research fronts

(i.e., co-citation analysis, direct citation) [89]. The equation for obtaining a bibliographic coupling

network is:

𝐵𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑝 = 𝐴𝑥𝐴′. Source: [76].

Where 𝐴 is a document and x is a cited reference matrix. The element 𝑏𝑖𝑗 indicates how many

bibliographic couplings exist between documents 𝑖 and 𝑗 . 𝐵𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑝 is both a non-negative/symmetrical

matrix. The number of shared references defines the strength of the bibliographic coupling between two

documents.

3.2.5 The CSE and the GSE

The following steps were performed to conduct a comparative analysis between the CSE and the GSE:

We sourced the complete Scopus bibliographic profile of each Nobel Prize laureate during the

same period as the CSE: 1990-2020, in the science categories (i.e., physics, chemistry, and

physiology and medicine), and the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of

Alfred Nobel. A total of 248 laureate profiles were sourced.

We re-classified CSE and GSE researchers according to their core discipline/subject categories

since awardees in respect of both prizes have a wide range of (under)graduate backgrounds.

Moreover, prize categories themselves cover a wide range of disciplines/research areas. For

instance, Juan Camilo Cárdenas, who belongs to the CSE, graduated from industrial engineering

and was awarded his prize in the AAEP-EnvSci category (2009). Another example is Daniel

Kahneman, a psychologist who received the Nobel Prize in economics (2002). The re-

classification was conducted as follows:

o Each CSE and GSE publication belongs to a single journal. Journals and serial titles are

classified using the All Science Journal Classification (ASJC), which is based on the

aims and scopes of the title and its content [90].

11

o We cross-checked the printed ISSN of each journal in which the CSE and GSE

researchers have published and matched its ASJC subject area. This cross-check

procedure was conducted for each CSE and GSE researcher.

o If a given journal belonged to more than one ASJC subject area, it was randomly

assigned.

o We then computed each researcher’s publication frequency according to the ASJC

subject areas.

o Each researcher was then assigned to one ASJC subject according to its own most

frequent ASJC subject based on its publishing record. For example, Cárdenas, an

engineer who was awarded a prize in the EnvSci category, was assigned to the

economics, econometrics and finance ASJC subject since most of his articles were

published in journals under that classification (Table 4).

Once researchers were re-classified into ASJC subjects, a first filter was applied to ensure that

the same ASJC category profiles of the GSE coincided with those of the CSE. We then

implemented non-proportional stratified sampling since there were not enough values for each

strata (i.e., no balanced classes in the GSE-ASJC profiles) due to the particular disciplinary foci

of the GSE. Table 3 shows the bibliometric descriptives of the selected laureates. The top three

disciplines in the CSE were: agricultural and biological sciences; arts and humanities; and

medicine. In the GSE, each of the following disciplines/fields had five researchers: medicine;

earth and planetary sciences; physics and astronomy; immunology and microbiology; chemistry;

and economics, econometrics and finance.

We replicated multiple citation indicators and their composite [52]: total impact; coauthorship

adjustment; and author order. In the first are the number of citations and h index [91]. The h

index is defined as follows: for a set of articles N of an author and defining 𝑐𝑖 as the number of

citations corresponding to an article 𝑖 then ordering the set of articles in decreasing order

according to the number of citations, formally:

ℎ 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 = max{i ∈ N: ci ≥ i} Source: Hirsch [91].

In the second, the hm index (i.e., an h index adjustment for coauthored papers) [55]. For a set of

articles N with 𝑐𝑖 the number of citations for the article 𝑖 and 𝑎𝑖 the number of corresponding

authors, the cumulative sum of the inverse of the number of authors is proposed as the effective

12

rank reff = ∑1

ai

i . Then, sorting the set of articles in decreasing order according to the number of

citations, the hm index can be defined as:

ℎ𝑚 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 = max{reff ∈ N: ci ≥ reff} Source: Schreiber [55,92].

In the third, the number of citations as a single author; as a single or first author; and as a single,

first or last author. Finally, the composite was calculated as the sum of the 0-1 normalization

log-transformation of the previous indices. Authorship order is crucial when assigning

credit/contribution to a research publication. With the exception of mathematics or economics

[93], the most credit assigned to a multi-authored article goes to the first author (i.e. early-career

researcher), and last author (usually a mentorship figure) [94]. Middle authors generally play a

more specific/technical role (i.e., statistical analysis). In sum, C brings a more nuanced

perspective of an author’s impact by including total impact, coauthorship adjustment, and the

author order as a proxy of the leading role (or absence of it). Table 3 shows Scopus author

profiles and bibliometric descriptive of the GSE aggregated and by category 1996-2020

Category Profiles Documents Articles Annual

growth % Authors

Authors

per Articles

Citations

per Articles

Most frequent

Chemistry 13 2,944 2,600 -2.71 3,660 0.80 126.2 Journal of the American

Chemical Society

Economics 6 334 226 -0.39 247 0.74 98.2 American Economic Review

Physics 12 2,517 2,166 -0.31 2,094 0.83 61.9 Japanese Journal of

Applied Physics Physiology

or Medicine

10 1,211 897 -5.16 2,558 2.11 113.2 Proceedings of the

National Academy of

Sciences of the United States of America

Total 41 7,006 5,889 -2.14 8,559 1.21 99.9

Source: [75,76].

Table 4 ASJC subject area classifications and supergroup for CSE and GSE

Source: the authors based on [75,90].

9 6

5 3 3 3 3 21

1 1

2 1 1

1 1

5 4 5 4 5 51

5 5

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Agric

ultu

ral a

ndBi

olog

ical

Sci

ence

s

Arts

and

Hum

aniti

es

Med

icin

e

Bioc

hem

istr

y, G

enet

ics

and

Mol

ecul

ar B

iolo

gy

Eart

h an

d Pl

anet

ary

Scie

nces

Engi

neer

ing

Phys

ics

and

Astr

onom

y

Imm

unol

ogy

and

Mic

robi

olog

y

Chem

ical

Eng

inee

ring

Chem

istr

y

Econ

omic

s, E

cono

met

rics

and

Fina

nce

Envi

ronm

enta

l Sci

ence

Mat

hem

atic

s

Soci

al S

cien

ces

CSE GCE

13

4 Results

4.1.1 AAEP research topics

Figure 1 displays the semantic networks of the titles of the 88 CSE by category. In SoSci, high

betweenness key terms were those related to history (century) and development. The two most populated

clusters, grouping ~27% of key terms, were related to indigenous peoples/territories; and historical and

territorial perspectives on political and social movements. In EnvSci, high betweenness terms were those

related to territories and ecology. The two most populated clusters, grouping ~39% of key terms, were

related to local natural reserves management strategies; and tools for conservation and identification of

biodiversity in the Amazon. In PhySci, high betweenness key terms were those related to control and

Alzheimer’s. The two most populated clusters, grouping ~31% of key terms, were related to genetics, and

research on Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. In all categories, the key term with the highest betweenness

was Colombia, highlighting the importance of research for local problems/understanding regardless of

category.

Env Sci

SoSci

14

PhySci

Aggregated

Figure 1 Semantic networks of research titles awarded by the AAENF by category. Source: the authors based

on AAEF [45,50]. Processed with quanteda, igraph and gephi [81,95–97].



Figure 2 displays the total articles and citations per year by category. In the three different areas awarded

by the AAEP, production was led by the PhySci category, followed by EnvSci and SoSci. This is

expected given the output and citation dynamics differential between PhySci and SoSci on inclusion and

participation in international journal indexing systems. In the case of citations, there is a well-defined

peak produced by the impact of researchers such as Nubia Muñoz, whose primary research is on the

human papillomavirus (HPV). In 2003, Muñoz published over 50 articles with ~14,000 citations, turning

her into one of the most productive and impactful researchers among the CSE. Figure 2 shows the PhySci

category citations with and without (dotted line) the inclusion of Nubia Muñoz. Table 5 presents the

most-cited article by AAEP category. All articles were published in internationally reputable journals,

edited by either world-renowned universities (Duke University) or societies (Massachusetts Medical

Society).

Table 5 Most-cited article by AAEP category Category Author Article Journal H index Citations

PhySci Nubia Muñoz Epidemiologic Classification of Human

Papillomavirus Types Associated with Cervical

Cancer

The New England

Journal of Medicine

1,030 4,583

EnvSci Jesús Olivero-

Verbel

Repellent activity of essential oils: A review Bioresource

Technology

294 631

SoSci Alejandro Castillejo-

Cuellar

Knowledge, Experience, and South Africa’s Scenarios of Forgiveness

Radical History Review

22 22

Source: the authors based on Scopus [98].

15

Figure 2 Total articles (left side) and citations (right side) per year by category. Source: the authors based on

AAEF [45,50] and Scopus [98]. Processed with quanteda, igraph and gephi [81,95–97].

Figure 3 shows the citation per article by category of the top three most-cited researchers. Dotted lines

indicate the year in which each researcher received the AAEP. First, in the discipline of PhySci, the top

three researchers were: Nubia Muñoz (AAEP-2006); Ana María Rey (AAEP-2007); and Iván Darío Vélez

(AAEP-2003). As previously stated, Muñoz was the most prolific author in this category, with a peak of

citations per paper in 2003 and another peak in 2007, just after receiving the AAEP. However, this metric

shows a decrease with no crucial peaks thereafter. Rey shows three peaks after receiving the award. Vélez

received the award comparatively early given that his most crucial peak occurred nearly nine years later

(2012). Thus, Muñoz appears to have been awarded at the peak of her career, whereas Rey and Vélez

were both awarded before their most impactful years.

Second, in EnvSci, the top three researchers were: Germán Poveda (AAEP-2007); Juan Camilo

Cárdenas (AAEP-2009); and Consuelo Montes (AAEP-2002). Poveda was awarded after his third career

peak. Two additional peaks ─ although lower ─ occurred later in his career. Cárdenas followed a similar

trend. He was awarded after three career peaks, 2000 being the most significant, followed by a smaller

peak in 2012. Montes was awarded in the middle of her first peak, followed by two similar peaks (2006

and 2009). Thus, whereas Poveda and Cárdenas received their awards after having reached their most

important peaks, Montes had several post-award peaks. The SoSci category does not allow for much

discussion. Suffice to say that after receiving the AAEP, Londoño, and Castillejo-Cuéllar appear to have

increased their intermittent involvement in publishing Soupus-indexed articles.

16

PhySci

EnvSci

SoSci

Figure 3 Citations per article by category of top three most-cited authors. Source: the authors based on AAEF

[45,50] and Scopus [98]. Processed with quanteda, igraph and gephi [81,95–97]. Note: the dashed line indicates

the year each author was awarded the AAEP; TCpP: citations per paper.

4.1.4 Institutional collaboration and coauthorship analysis

The CSE-PhySci institutional collaboration network has a density of 0.017 (Figure 4). The average path

length shows that two random institutions need ~3 steps between middle institutions to reach each other

via the shortest path. The network’s principal component comprises 26.98% nodes, followed by the

remaining clusters with 26.84%, 23.37%, and 12.80%, respectively. Five important Colombian

universities ranked among the top-ten institutions with highest betweenness: three public, two private.

The institution with the highest betweenness was Universidad de Antioquia (Colombia – Public).

Researchers such as Iván Darío Vélez (PhySci-1994, 2003) are currently affiliated with this institution. In

contrast, the remaining institutions are international universities or institutions such as the International

Agency for research on Cancer (France) or the Institut Catal D’oncologia (Spain), where Nubia Muñoz

conducts her research on the human papillomavirus. World-renowned universities such as Harvard

17

University (USA – Private), and Free University of Berlin (Germany – Public) also ranked among the

top-ten.

Cluster color % nodes

26.98% 26.84% 23.37% 12.80% 2.36%

Macro indices

Density 0,01 Average Path Length

2,94

Institution Betweenness

Universidad de Antioquia

0.50

International Agency for Research on Cancer

0.22

Universidad Nacional de Colombia

0.16

University of Colorado

0.12

Universidad de Los Andes

0.11

Institut Catal D'oncologia

0.09

Harvard University

0.08

Pontificia Universidad Javeriana

0.06

Freie Universität Berlin

0.05

Universidad Del Valle

0.05

Figure 4 Institutional collaboration network – PhySci. Sources: the authors based on [75,95].

The CSE-EnvSci institutional collaboration network (Figure 5) has a density of 0.031, higher than

PhySci, but a lower average path length of 2.6. The principal component is composed of 83.8% of nodes,

followed by clusters with 7.3 and 2.2%. The institution with the highest betweenness is the National

University of Colombia (Public), one of the most prestigious universities in the country. Some authors

like Germán Poveda-EnvSci are affiliated with this university. Among the list are seven major Colombian

universities, while the remaining institutions are either international universities or institutions. Among

the latter can be found ICIPE (Kenya), Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (Public), and the

Sustainable Perennial Crops Laboratory (USA), which belongs to the Department of Agriculture.

18

Cluster color % Nodes

83.82% 7.35% 2.21% 1.47% 0.74%

Macro indices

Density 0.031 Average Path Length

2.659



0.44


0.29

Universidad de Antioquia

0.17

Universidad de Cartagena

0.16

Centro Nacional de Investigaciones de Café (Cenicafé)

0.11

Pontificia Universidad Javeriana

0.09

Universidad Del Valle

0.03

International Center of Insect Physiology And Ecology (ICIPE)

0.02

UNAM 0.02 Sustainable Perennial Crops Laboratory

0.01

Figure 5 Institutional collaboration network – EnvSci. Sources: the authors based on [75,95].

The CSE-SoSci institutional collaboration network (Figure 6) has a density of 0.133, higher than those in

PhySci and EnvSci, but composed of just ten nodes. The average path length is 1.25. The principal

component is composed of 40% of nodes, followed by a cluster with 20% of the nodes and two with 10%.

The institution with the highest betweenness is Universidad de Los Andes (Colombia – Private), among

Colombia’s most prestigious private universities. Authors such as Carl Henrik Langebaek (SoSci-2009) is

affiliated with it. The remaining universities do not have betweenness properties. There is only one

international university: the University of California (USA). Despite the CSE-institutional collaboration

being composed mainly of local institutions, they also have a high betweenness of reputable international

institutions ─ in some cases, among the world’s top-tier ─ particularly in the PhySci and EnvSci

categories.

19


40% 20% 20% 10% 10%

Macro indices


1.25



0.056


0.0

University of California, Berkeley

0.0

Figure 6 Institutional collaboration network – SciSco. Sources: the authors based on [75,95].

The CSE- PhySci coauthorship network (Figure 7) has a density of 0.007. The average path length of 3.62

means that ~4 steps on average are needed for two random nodes to reach each other via the shortest path.

The network’s principal component comprises 31.95% of the nodes, followed by the remaining clusters

with 16.81%, 14.57%, 8.49%, and 7.45%, respectively. Muñoz has the highest betweenness within the

principal component. In the second place is Luis Fernando García (AAEP-2000), a physician affiliated

with Universidad de Antioquia. Mauricio Restrepo, within Muñoz’s cluster, serves as a bridge between

the Muñoz and García clusters. Restrepo, on his part, is affiliated with the National Institute of Health,

Colombia, and connects the Muñoz and Felipe Guhl clusters. Guhl (AAEP-1998) is a biologist at

Universidad de Los Andes. Finally, the Ana María Rey cluster (AAEP-2007) is a closed network. Rey

currently works on quantum physics and ultra-cold atoms at the University of Colorado Boulder, a field

distant from (micro)biology, genetics, and other branches of medicine.

20


32.91% 17.91% 15.04% 8.76% 7.69%

Macro indices


3.62

Author Betweenness

Munoz N 0.40 Garcia L F 0.22 Velez I D 0.18 Restrepo M 0.15 Torres F 0.13 Guhl F 0.11 Roman F 0.05 Patio P J 0.04 Velez-Pardo C 0.04 Rojas M 0.04

Figure 7 Author collaboration network – PhySci. Sources: the authors based on [75,95].

The CSE-EnvSci network (Figure 8) has a density of 0.019. The average path length is higher at 4.25.

The network’s principal component comprises 42.82% of the nodes, followed by the remaining clusters

comprising 18.48%, 17.89%, 6.74%, and 4.99%, respectively. The node with the highest betweenness is

Germán Poveda (AAEP 2007, 2019), affiliated with Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Medellín. He

specializes in hydraulics. Óscar José Mesa (AAEP-2000, 2007), with the same affiliation as Poveda,

ranked in 2nd place. He also works in hydraulics. Authors such as Jaime Carmona-Fonseca

(epidemiologist-virologist) or Walter Salas-Zapata (bacteriologist), both affiliated with Universidad de

Antioquia, have a higher betweenness despite being outside the five main clusters. In sum, most of the

authors are affiliated with local universities, compared to the CSE- PhySci.

21


42.82% 18.48% 17.89% 6.74% 4.99%

Macro indices


4.251

Author Betweenness

Poveda G 0.29 Mesa OJ 0.20 Carmona-Fonseca J

0.19

Salas-Zapata WA

0.18

Castillo JA 0.17 Stevenson PR

0.15

Link A 0.10 Jaramillo A 0.07 Guzmn A 0.06 Olivero-Verbel J

0.03

Bustillo-Pardey AE

0.03

Echeverry-Galvis Ma

0.02

Len J 0.02 Jaramillo J 0.02 Borgemeister C

0.02

Botero JE 0.01

Figure 8 Author collaboration network – EnvSci. Sources: the authors based on [75,95].

The CSE-SoSci network (Figure 9) has a density of 0.128 and an average path length of 1.043, which is

the shortest in the study sample. It is also the smallest network, within which the flow of information is

the most efficient. The principal component of the network comprises 33.33% of the nodes, followed by

the remaining clusters with 14.81%, 11.11%, and 7.41%, respectively. The author with the highest

betweenness is Carl Henrik Langebaek (AAEP-2009), an anthropologist affiliated with Universidad de

Los Andes. In the same cluster can be found Melanie J. Miller, an anthropologist at University of Otago,

New Zealand; and Sabrina C. Agarwal, an anthropologist at University of California, Berkeley. Both

work in similar bioarchaeological fields.


33.33% 14.81% 11.11% 7.41% 7.41%

Macro indices

Density 0.128 Average Path Lenght

1.043

Author Betweenness

Langebaek CH

0.006

Pacheco-Ceballos R

0

Granados R 0 Castillejo-Cuellar A

0

Figure 9 Author collaboration network – SoSci. Sources: the authors based on [75,95].

22

4.1.5 Bibliographic coupling networks

The bibliographic coupling network clusters were labeled according to the most frequent ASJC subject

among each journal cluster. If the most frequent ASJC subject in a given cluster reaches at least half of

the first most frequent subject, that cluster will also share the label of the second most frequent subject.

Nodes with a degree less than five were hidden from the layout to improve the structure’s interpretation.

Figure 10 presents the PhySci bibliographic coupling network. Density equals 0.026 and the

average path length is 3.56, which means an average of ~4 steps for a random pair of nodes to reach each

other via the shortest path, those nodes being a pair of coupled documents. The principal component of

this network corresponds to: medicine/agricultural and biological sciences having 43.53% of the

network’s nodes, followed by physics and astronomy with 20.98%; biochemistry, genetics and molecular

biology with 12.50%; 6.11% for immunology and microbiology; and 2.95% for mathematics. Even with

the principal component mainly comprising articles classified in medicine, most articles with the highest

property of mediating the flow/share of knowledge/references belonged to physics ─ with a marginal

presence of articles on movement disorders (e.g., Parkinson’s disease).


43.53% Medicine / Agricultural and Biological Sciences

20.98% Physics and Astronomy 12.50% Biochemistry, Genetics and

Molecular Biology 6.11% Inmunology and Microbiology 2.95% Mathematics

Macro indices

Density 0.026 Average path length 3.56

Document Betweenness

Calzetta E, 2006, Phys Rev A.

0.121

Rey AM, 2005, Phys Rev A.

0.065

Rey AM, 2004, Phys Rev A.

0.063

Patterson JS, 2010, AM Trypanosomiasis.

0.042

Del Rio MJ, 2004, Mov Disord.

0.037

Ferraro F, 2015, J Phys Chem C.

0.032

Mantilla JS, 2013, Parasitol Res.

0.032

Gomez T, 2015, Molecules-A.

0.031

Ponce WA, 2002, Int J Mod Phys A. 2002

0.031

Rojas-Valencia L, 2017, Biometals.

0.028

Figure 10 Bibliographic coupling network – PhySci. Sources: the author based on [75,95].

Figure 11 presents the EnvSci bibliographic coupling network. The density equals 0.058 with an average

path length of 2.56. Most of the network corresponds to the agricultural and biological sciences/earth and

planetary sciences with 85.77% nodes, followed by 1.80% for chemical engineering. Documents with the

23

highest betweenness were mostly articles in (sub)fields such as contamination and toxicology, ecology,

geology, environmental economics, and molecular catalysis. There is also the involvement of a report

from the IPCC-2014 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).


85.77%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences / Earth and Planetary Sciences

1.80% Chemical Engineering

Macro indices

Density 0.058 Average Path Length 2.56


Alcala-Orozco M, 2020, Arch Environ Contam Toxicol.

0.039

Poveda G, 2006, Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol.

0.038

Cardenas JC, 2011, Environ Resour Econ.

0.031

Aristizbal B, 2004, J Mol Catal A Chem.

0.029

Crdoba LF, 2005, Appl Catal B Environ.

0.020

Cruz-Tejada DM, 2018, Ecosphere.

0.020

Arias PA, 2021, Front Earth Sci.

0.019

Magrin GO, 2015, Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation And Vulnerability: Part B.

0.018

Correa DF, 2015, Global Ecol Biogeogr.

0.018

Renjifo LM, 2020, Plos One.

0.018

Figure 11 Bibliographic coupling network – EnvSci. Sources: the authors based on [75,95].

Figure 12 presents the SoSci bibliographic coupling network. The network has a density of 0.051 with an

average path length of 2.339. The principal component is composed mainly of arts and humanities/social

sciences, with 45.28% of nodes. The document with the highest betweenness was on the history of land-

use planning in Colombia. Most journals were devoted to history and anthropology, and geography, with

a few exceptions in law, health policy, and hydraulic engineering.

24


44.23%

Arts and Humanities / Social Sciences

Macro indices

Density 0.051 Average Path Length 2.339


Herrera Angel M, 2006, Hist Crit. 2006

0.1098

Serje M, 2017, Front. 0.0347 Langebaek CH, 2004, Hist Crit.

0.0324

Londono JL, 1997, Health Policy.

0.0324

Castillejo-Cuellar A, 2013, Anthropol Today.

0.0205

Castillejo-Cuellar A, 2014, Law Crit.

0.0170

Herrera Angel M, 2006, J Lat Am Geogr.

0.0111

Castillejo-Cuellar A, 2014, Horizontes Antropol.

0.0088

Castillejo-Cuellar A, 2007, Radic Hist Rev.

0.0039

Pacheco-Ceballos R, 1992, J Hydraul Eng.

0.0015

Figure 12 Bibliographic coupling network – SoSci. Sources: the authors based on [75,95].

Figure 13 presents a summary of the nodes and macro indices of the three types of networks presented

above. The number of nodes is proportional to the number of articles in each CSE category. In contrast,

the density is inversely proportional to the number of articles. The decreasing average path length

reinforces this observation.

In terms of institutional collaboration, the SoSci network has established more real than potential

institutional collaborations, followed by EnvSci and PhySci. Accordingly, there are fewer intermediates

between a pair of institutions than PhySci and EnvSci. On the other hand, the number of institutions in

PhySci is almost ~6 times higher than EnvSci, and ~49 times higher than SoSci, giving PhySci a higher

average path length. Compared to EnvSci, however, PhySci does not have over a complete intermediate

institution in average. In contrast, there are on average ~2 different intermediate institutions between

PhySci and SoSci. The coauthorship networks display similar patterns regarding the average number of

intermediate authors for PhySci and SoSci. However, the EnvSci network showed the highest average

path length with ~4 middle authors.

Among the top-ten institutions, the PhySci collaboration network showed a direct collaboration

between Universidad de Antioquia and Harvard University (161 Nobel Prizes). In EnvSci, Universidad de

Los Andes, Nacional, Cartagena, and Valle, have at least one direct collaboration with UNAM (3 Nobel

Prizes). In SoSci, Universidad de Los Andes has a direct collaboration with the University of California,

25

Berkeley (110 Nobel Prizes). Thus, CSE institutions are embedded in a collaboration network with GSE

institutions. In a more refined analysis at the authorship level, only two AAEPs have coauthored with

GSE authors: Juan Camilo Cárdenas with Elinor Ostrom in What do people bring into the game?

Experiments in the field about cooperation in the commons (2004); and Nubia Muñoz with Harald zur

Hausen in Nasopharyngeal carcinoma. X. Presence of epstein-barr genomes in separated epithelial cells

of tumours in patients from Singapore, Tunisia and Kenya (1975).

Regarding bibliographic coupling networks, the PhySci network displayed a more diverse topic-

cluster formation in terms of research fronts (i.e., shared knowledge/references) than the more

multi/inter/transdisciplinary categories of EnvSci. The SoSci network was the most homogeneous

network. In SoSci, despite the reduced number of research fronts, the average middle document was ~2,

similar to EnvSci, although EnvSci has ~9 times the number of nodes.

Network Nodes and macro indices

Institutional

collaboration

Coauthorship

Bibliographic

coupling

Figure 13 Nodes and macro indices summary. Sources: the authors based on [75,95].

4.1.6 The CSE and the GSE

Table 6 presents the citation indicators and their composite [52]. GSE was yellow while CSE yellow-light

colored. Horizontal lines divide the table into C quartiles. The six scientific impact and productivity

indices are separated into two aspects: bulk impact (number of citations [NC] and h index [H]); and

719136

16

0,010,031

0,13

2,94 2,651,25

0,01

0,1

1

10

1

10

100

1000

1219341

270,0070,019

0,128

3,62 4,251,43

0,001

0,01

0,1

1

10

1

10

100

1000

10000

1392 48853

0,0260,058 0,051

3,56 2,56 2,339

0,01

0,1

1

10

1

10

100

1000

10000

PhySci EnvSci SoSci

Nodes- left axis Density-right axis Av. Path Length-right axis

26

authorship order adjusted impact (Schreiber Hm index [HM]; total citations for papers where the scientist

is the single author [NS]; total citations for papers where the scientist is the single or first author [NSF];

and total citations for papers where the scientist is the single, first, or last author [NSFL]). Their

composite (C) is calculated as the sum of the normalized log-transformation of previous indexes. The

normalization of 0-1 range values was computed according to each CSE and GSE. Each column is

colored from dark (higher score) to light green (lower). Figure 14 displays the violin-box plot for each

index and group.

After dividing C into quartiles, Nubia Muñoz (medicine) is the lone AAEP among the 4th

quartile. She also ranked 1st in the NSF indicator. The appearance of Muñoz in all the sections presented

above, even in a direct comparison with the GSE, is explained by her contribution to the study of the

human papillomavirus, which earned her a Nobel Prize nomination by the International Epidemiological

Association. The highest was that of Alan J. Heeger (chemistry). Among the 3rd quartile, several AAEPs

emerged: Germán Poveda Jaramillo (earth and planetary sciences); Pablo R. Stevenson (agricultural and

biological sciences); Felipe Guhl Nannetti (agricultural and biological sciences); Juan Camilo Cárdenas

(economics, econometrics and finance); Marlene Jiménez Del Rio (biochemistry, genetics and molecular

biology); Ana María Rey Ayala (physics and astronomy); and Carlos Alberto Vélez Pardo (biochemistry,

genetics and molecular biology). On the other hand, there were several GSEs ranked 2nd and one was

ranked 1st, for instance, Thomas Schelling (arts and humanities); James Mirrlees (economics,

econometrics and finance); Makoto Kobayashi (chemistry); Georges Charpak (medicine); François

Englert (physics and astronomy). Thus, neither scientific elite was fractured into two mutually exclusive

groups.

Table 6 Composite index (C) for the CSE and GSE Rank Award Discipline/Field Author NC H HM NS NSF NSFL C

1 Nobel Engineering Alan J. Heeger 81.102 135 58,07 5.106 5.164 59.254 5,86

2 Nobel Chemistry John B. Goodenough 61.250 109 60,30 3.313 15.458 49.009 5,84

3 Nobel Engineering Shuji Nakamura 50.231 103 47,59 3.421 15.089 38.720 5,74

4 Nobel Biochemistry, Genetics

and Molecular Biology Robert H. Grubbs 61.332 115 65,37 2.206 4.720 50.214 5,7

5 Nobel Chemical engineering Ben Feringa 51.112 114 60,01 1.828 3.627 39.923 5,59


and Molecular Biology Aarón Ciechanover 32.557 66 35,04 2.833 5.579 26.248 5,37

7 AAEP Medicine Nubia Muñoz 42.754 84 27,89 1.013 15.967 20.622 5,36

8 Nobel Earth and Planetary

Sciences Paul J. Crutzen 22.413 64 29,16 3.201 4.592 11.975 5,21

9 Nobel Economics, Econometrics

and Finance Esther Duflo 19.944 62 31,43 1.920 6.131 11.400 5,18


Sciences James Peebles 14.077 42 28,25 2.488 9.151 13.821 5,13

11 Nobel Immunology and

Microbiology Jules A. Hoffmann 24.312 72 22,23 1.060 4.210 13.069 5,05


Microbiology Tasuku Honjo 36.472 93 34,12 209 968 23.529 4,95

13 Nobel Chemistry Richard Smalley 46.843 83 22,45 422 724 27.874 4,93 14 Nobel Engineering Hiroshi Amano 31.879 81 35,13 122 1.505 6.810 4,79


and Molecular Biology James E. Rothman 17.809 58 22,38 350 1.542 13.569 4,75

16 Nobel Physics and Astronomy Anthony James

Leggett 4.678 31 22,94 3.187 3.294 4.587 4,74


Microbiology Peter C. Doherty 13.469 65 28,19 195 1.547 8.649 4,69


Microbiology James P. Allison 31.295 77 29,73 174 213 22.814 4,69


and Finance Michael Kremer 8.715 46 22,87 648 1.818 5.915 4,66

27

20 Nobel Chemistry Rudolph A. Marcus 5.359 37 25,18 1.000 1.013 5.169 4,56

21 Nobel Physics and Astronomy William Daniel

Phillips 8.743 42 13,23 974 988 5.011 4,48


and Finance Lars Peter Hansen 5.158 40 20,25 202 3.620 3.692 4,44

23 Nobel Physics and Astronomy Horst Ludwig Störmer 34.885 48 11,91 178 578 7.091 4,39

24 Nobel Physics and Astronomy Robert B. Laughlin 3.195 20 13,69 900 1.527 1.660 4,18

25 AAEP Earth and Planetary

Sciences

Germán Poveda

Jaramillo 4.443 37 16,64 35 3.066 3.521 4,14

26 Nobel Medicine Michael Houghton 7.147 40 13,14 312 591 1.336 4,14

27 Nobel Engineering Hideki Shirakawa 2.224 21 14,23 692 718 1.583 4,05

28 AAEP Agricultural and

Biological Sciences Pablo R. Stevenson 1.564 22 15,48 341 969 1.228 3,97


Biological Sciences Felipe Guhl Nannetti 2.752 34 14,85 80 941 1.719 3,96

30 AAEP Economics, Econometrics

and Finance

Juan Camilo Cardenas

Campo 1.753 20 11,44 344 1.274 1.526 3,94

31 Nobel Medicine Barry Marshall 1.867 24 14,65 252 411 1.377 3,88


Sciences F. Sherwood Rowland 4.170 36 11,51 119 119 2.410 3,82

33 Nobel Chemistry Yves Chauvin 1.759 20 7,86 449 577 973 3,77


and Finance Robert Aumann 909 13 10,67 516 903 909 3,74


and Molecular Biology John Bennett Fenn 1.345 13 7,70 576 669 1.290 3,72

36 Nobel Immunology and Microbiology

Françoise Barré-Sinoussi

3.408 30 12,12 61 220 524 3,62

37 AAEP Biochemistry, Genetics

and Molecular Biology

Marlene Jimenez Del

Rio 1.977 26 15,97 9 752 1.275 3,59

38 AAEP Physics and Astronomy Ana María Rey Ayala 5.199 37 17,15 0 614 2.583 3,55


Sciences George F. Smoot 3.158 25 10,97 38 59 935 3,41



Carlos Alberto Vélez

Pardo 2.191 27 16,48 0 546 1.892 3,36

41 AAEP Environmental science Jesus Olivero Verbel 2.773 27 15,17 0 683 1.389 3,35

42 AAEP Medicine Iván Darío Vélez

Bernal 6.021 31 12,11 0 399 1.159 3,33

43 Nobel Arts and Humanities Thomas Schelling 339 10 9,44 261 261 320 3,26


Biological Sciences

Luis Miguel Renjifo

Martínez 461 7 4,74 299 306 438 3,12


and Finance James Mirrlees 425 6 5,37 277 315 315 3,08

46 AAEP Mathematics Federico Ardila

Mantilla 416 11 7,53 33 416 416 3,08

47 Nobel Chemistry Makoto Kobayashi 2.395 27 8,44 0 308 423 3,02

48 Nobel Medicine Georges Charpak 1.302 11 3,70 19 183 1.122 2,97

49 Nobel Medicine Paul Lauterbur 1.033 12 6,28 35 45 583 2,95

50 Nobel Agricultural and

Biological Sciences William C. Campbell 230 6 6,33 195 201 230 2,94

51 AAEP Immunology and

Microbiology Luis Fernando Garcia 4.130 37 15,10 0 0 2.224 2,82


Sciences Riccardo Giacconi 1.092 12 4,09 30 35 351 2,77

53 Nobel Medicine Jens C. Skou 190 4 4,50 175 190 190 2,73



Fernando Echeverri

Lopez 914 20 6,64 0 118 454 2,72


Biological Sciences

Juliana Jaramillo

Salazar 598 13 5,13 0 533 570 2,71

56 AAEP Physics and Astronomy William A. Ponce

Gutiérrez 623 13 8,28 0 257 374 2,71

57 AAEP Social sciences Alejandro Castillejo

Cuéllar 92 6 7,00 92 92 92 2,63

58 AAEP Chemical engineering Consuelo Montes De

Correa 852 17 6,81 0 66 423 2,62

59 AAEP Chemistry Jhon Fredy Perez

Torres 360 12 5,58 28 54 59 2,61

60 Nobel Physics and Astronomy François Englert 257 9 4,90 22 76 80 2,52

61 AAEP Agricultural and Biological Sciences

Nubia Estela Matta Camacho

372 12 4,79 0 65 239 2,33


Sciences

Oscar José Mesa

Sánchez 1.416 13 7,05 0 0 1.020 2,26

63 AAEP Immunology and

Microbiology

Pablo J. Patiño

Grajales 407 12 3,11 0 74 182 2,23


Sciences

Andrés Alejandro

Plazas Malagón 137 7 2,58 1 101 101 1,96

65 AAEP Arts and Humanities Diana Obregón Torres 33 3 4,00 33 33 33 1,94

66 AAEP Medicine Alberto Gómez

Gutiérrez 249 9 4,10 0 14 57 1,91

67 AAEP Engineering Francisco José Román

Campos 129 6 4,18 0 26 114 1,9

68 AAEP Medicine Walter Alfredo Salas

Zapata 82 6 3,08 0 77 77 1,86

69 AAEP Physics and Astronomy Cristian Edwin Susa

Quintero 101 7 3,12 0 50 63 1,85

70 AAEP Arts and Humanities Astrid Ulloa 16 3 3,00 16 16 16 1,58

71 AAEP Medicine Francisco Lopera

Restrepo 288 8 3,64 0 0 21 1,51


Biological Sciences

Jesús Orlando Vargas

Ríos 83 6 2,98 0 0 31 1,33

73 AAEP Engineering Juan Carlos Salcedo

Reyes 66 6 1,64 2 3 3 1,15


Biological Sciences Alex E Bustillo Pardey 48 5 2,16 0 0 8 1,04


Biological Sciences Jorge Eduardo Botero 27 3 1,25 0 4 21 0,99

76 AAEP Arts and Humanities Mauricio Nieto Olarte 12 2 1,92 1 12 12 0,99

77 AAEP Arts and Humanities Sergio Andrés Mejía

Macía 6 1 2,00 6 6 6 0,87

78 AAEP Engineering Raul Pacheco Ceballos 4 2 2,00 4 4 4 0,84

79 AAEP Environmental science Margarita Serje De La

Ossa 5 1 2,00 5 5 5 0,79


Biological Sciences

Carlos Enrique

Sarmiento Pinzón 36 2 0,81 0 0 0 0,41

81 AAEP Arts and Humanities Carl Henrik

Langebaek Rueda 5 1 1,50 0 0 4 0,35

82 AAEP Arts and Humanities Marta Herrera Ángel 2 1 1,00 2 2 2 0,26

Source: the authors based on [52,75,90]. Note: NC: total citations; H: H index; Hm: Schreiber Hm index; NS:

total citations for papers where the scientist is the single author; NSF: total citations for papers where the

scientist is the single or first author; NSFL: total citations for papers where the scientist is the single, first, or

last author; C: composite citation indicator.

28

Figure 14 Box-violin plots according to group of scientific elite and bulk impact and authorship order adjusted

impact indices. Source: the author based on [52,75,90]. Note: NC: total citations; H: H index; Hm: Schreiber

Hm index; NS: total citations for papers where the scientist is the single author; NSF: total citations for papers

where the scientist is the single or first author; NSFL: total citations for papers where the scientist is the single,

first, or last author. Source: the authors based on [52,75,90]

5 Discussion

Most of the CSE has motivations/incentives other than publishing research in academic journals. This is

due to the AAEP’s broad scope in granting awards. Awards are granted not only for research articles,

dissertations (MSc/PhD), and books, but also for technical reports or books published by leading national

institutions, such as IDEAM (Institute of Hydrology, Meteorology and Environmental Studies) or the

Alexander von Humboldt Biological Resources Research Institute (EnvSci); or the National Centre for

Historical Memory; and NGOs such as Tropenbos International (SoSci). In contrast, all GSEs 1990-2020

had publications in Scopus.

29

Yet, in all science categories, the GSE had a decreasing trend in annual growth output. At the

individual level, this explains the temporary dip in GSE impact after winning the award and reduced

productivity albeit with a higher impact [11,99]. The inverse relationship between age and productivity

could be another explanatory factor since the average laureate age over the past 25 years is 44.1±9.7,

those in physics being the youngest at 42±12.5 [100]. Additional factors, as noted by Diamandis [101] in

an opinion piece, are as follows: laureates receive the prize 20-50 years after their core contribution to

their field, by which time they are past their prime; they become less active in terms of research; or their

main contribution was a serendipitous one-hit-wonder. At the country level, research on endogenous

growth suggests that ideas are getting harder to find and that more human and financial resources are

required to maintain the same growth levels as those in previous decades (e.g., 18 times the number of

researchers are required nowadays to double the chip density than was the case in the 1970s) [102].

Several explanatory factors could be outlined here, such as reduced public funding, follow on innovations

that produce smaller growth, or the fact that a third industrial revolution led by computers, the Internet,

and mobile phones, produced only a stunted growth between 1996-2004 [103].

Conversely, the AAEP showed an increasing trend in all categories. It is important, however, to

consider the following growth comparison in the limited context of the study’s specific research sample

and scale. The annual growth rate for each category ranges between <1% for SoSci and 6.67 for EnvSci.

Given that the annual growth rate for modern science post-WWII is ~9%, the overall output growth figure

of 2.97% is below such an estimate [104]. The CSE’s overall growth was similar to that in the mid-18th

century and between WWI and WWII (~3%). In the context of developing countries, the average annual

growth 1996-2018 in the fields of PhySci, EnvSci, and SoSci was 18% [46]. Thus, even in the most

prolific category (EnvSci), the growth is below historical and disciplinary estimates but positive

compared to that of the GSE. Two examples provide details on the CSE output/impact. A special case in

terms of output is that of Ana María Rey (PhySci) and Juan Camilo Cárdenas (EnvSci). Rey has

coauthored multiple articles in most of the physics journals that publish Nobel Prize research [5] (i.e.,

Physical Review; Science; and Nature) and has made contributions to fields such as solid states physics –

a field that garnered a significant amount of Nobel Prizes in the 20th century[14]. Cárdenas also has

coauthored articles published in Science. His research topics include game theory, a field which was

awarded the Nobel Prize in 1994, 1996, 2001, 2005, 2007, 2012 and 2014 [105].

30

Our findings do not support the post-AAEP push effect in citations/article. While a few CSE

members received the prize at the peak of their careers (i.e., Muñoz-PhySci; Montes-EnvSci), or after

peaks (i.e., Cárdenas-EnvSci), others received the prize far earlier than their most crucial peak (Velez-

PhySci). Compared to the GSE ─ members of which received the Nobel prize at their peak, followed by a

brief halo effect ─ there is no discernible halo effect for the CSE [22,106]. A halo effect is usually defined

as a bias whereby an impression produced by a single trait (i.e., winning a Nobel Prize or an AAEP)

influences multiple judgments (i.e., the prize-winning researcher’s future research). A contributory factor

could be the wide range of participants in the AAEP. Given that the AAEP annually awards diverse

products, it is not necessary to be a committed researcher in order to trigger, sustain, or participate in a

halo effect. This is not the case with the Nobel Prize. It is also important to mention the lack of sustained

and well-funded research in Colombia [107] ─ a constraint that is likely to persist, resulting in

intermittent productivity and impact [108].

Several institutions with GSE members shared rankings with CSE institutions among the top-ten

highest betweenness, particularly the PhySci network. For exmaple, institutions such as Harvard

University, University of California, Berkeley, and UNAM, showed a higher betweenness in each

network. The public-private status of those institutions mirrored the institution networks of the CSE,

which were also composed of the local university elite. Some of these universities are private (i.e., Los

Andes, Javeriana), some public (i.e., Nacional, Antioquia, Cartagena), but always featuring at the top of

the regional rankings [62]. Research centers and agencies in the fields of agriculture and cancer also play

an essential role. Thus, despite being high betweenness actors, it is mainly local, GSE-awarded

institutions that rank among the top. This does not mean, however, that there is a direct collaboration

between the CSE and the GSE – only two researchers had coauthored articles with Nobel laureates.

Nevertheless, it supports the idea that Nobel Prize winners influence prize-winning networks and also

reflects the brokerage role of the CSE as nodes in its respective coauthorship networks [26].

The strategic location of both the GSE and the CSE in the institutional collaboration networks

partly reinforces the point made by Jiang and Liu [61]: that top-tier institutions generate the most

production and enticement of scientific elites, thereby aggravating the inequality between emergent or

peripheral institutions and those with cumulative advantages. Furthermore, faculty at high-prestige

institutions drive the diffusion and influence of ideas, often irrespective of quality (e.g., an idea spreads

more rapidly if it originates from a prestigious institution than an idea of similar quality from a less

31

prestigious institution) [53]. Compared to PhySci and EnvSci, the SoSci institutional/coauthorship

networks showed a lower density. This suggests a closed structure leading to a more efficient flow of

knowledge/information, trust and mutual understanding, prosocial group norms, and potential access to

support in times of austerity [109]. However, it also comes with downsides such as redundant information

and constraints upon actors’ options [109]. Conversely, in the open structure of PhySci and EnvSci, new

ideas flow through weak ties, and actors with higher betweenness potentially receive strategic resources.

Among the downsides, an open structure is not ideal for complex information flow, creates less trust, and

complex communication requires more effort [109]. The latter was noticeable in the PhySci author

network, where whole clusters were completely exiled from the network.

Macro indices resembled those of previous bibliographic coupling networks modeled to test the

Hierarchy of the Sciences hypothesis, particularly for PhySci [110]. The average path length of the

PhySci bibliographic coupling network resembled the average path lengths in space science, and physics:

3.6. The EnvSci network showed a lower average path length than the environment/ecology network: 3.7.

The consistent average path length in higher consensus (i.e., hardness) disciplines/fields could be

explained by references: fewer references are needed to justify/explain/support a study. This observation

has to be contrasted with the diversity of disciplinary clusters in PhySci compared to EnvSci since

hardness in science is characterized by the reduced diversity of sources used (i.e., fewer research topics of

general interest). In other words, despite the AAEP being entitled physics and natural sciences, the prize

has been granted to researchers with a higher diversity in their research fronts ─ on aggregate ─

compared to those with a lower diversity in EnvSci and SoSci.

In specific cases, the CSE research fronts differ from Colombia’s national output focus. On the

other hand, there are clear similarities when comparing the CSE with the main national output

disciplines/areas according to ASJC classification. First, while the natural sciences lead national output

(mainly: ecology; botany; horticulture; particle physics; and zoology), the PhySci research front

composed mainly of medicine was in 4th place in the national output ranking. It is also important to bear

in mind that the principal component of PhySci has significant involvement in the agricultural and

biological sciences, also reflected in the natural science national output. Similarly, in the case of EnvSci

─ and a substantial portion of the principal component in PhySci ─ the national output in agricultural

sciences figured at the bottom. The second field in the principal component of EnvSci, earth and

planetary science, is not significant in the national output. In contrast, the national output in SoSci figured

32

in 2nd place (mainly welfare economics; pedagogy; epistemology; law; and social psychology), while the

SoSci Scopus profiles were the least representative in the sample. Second, in terms of net output and after

applying the ASJC classification to the CSE, the most frequent disciplines/areas (i.e., agricultural and

biological sciences; arts and humanities; and medicine) were also among those with the highest output in

the country. Other national disciplines/areas by output were engineering and technology (mainly artificial

intelligence; food science; control theory; analytical chemistry; and composite material), comprising <1%

of the CSE after ASJC classification. This is also consonant with the marginal mathematics cluster in

PhySci. Differences in such results need to be viewed with caution since national data was estimated

using the Microsoft Academic Graph, which is the second source of bibliographic data after Google

Scholar [111]. Scopus, on the other hand, was in third place in terms of references covered.

Broadening international efforts related to the global development agenda, a comprehensive

assessment of SDG using bibliographic coupling identified the following as the most significant clusters:

maternal, newborn, and child morbidity and mortality; ecosystems services and adaptations for

sustainability; and health surveys, tuberculosis, substance abuse, and longevity [112]. In those areas, the

most crowded research fronts of the CSE, PhySci and EnvSci in particular have the potential and strategic

value to contribute to SDG’s core research and to participate in its global endeavor [113].

Using bulk impact and authorship adjustment indicators and their composite enabled a more

nuanced and inclusive analysis between the CSE and the GSE. Our findings on the first two quartiles of

the C shed light on the local human and scientific profile, seasoned with Nobel productivity/impact

features – something not visible either in the pure index of Nobel Prizes affiliated with universities or in

Clarivate’s Highly Cited Researcher ranking. These changes, inclusions, and exclusions were also pointed

out by Ioannidis et al. [52] when proposing C (e.g. Nobel laureates ranked among the top-1,000, but

would rank much lower if total citations alone were considered). Finding local names such as Luís

Fernando García between William C. Campbell or Riccardo Giacconi puts the knowledge produced by

Colombian researchers and developing countries under a very different and encouraging light. The CSE

could be found among the superior 50% and the GSE among the inferior 50%. Our findings also contrast

with previous findings on the lower research impact of authors from Latin America, despite their

involvement as contributors to reputable journals [114].

33

6 Conclusion

This study aimed to provide a comprehensive analysis of the output, impact, and structure of the CSE. It

also drew a comparison with the GSE using an impact and authorship adjustment composite indicator.

Our findings showed that the CSE has a broader agenda than indexed titles in internationally renowned

bibliographic databases ─ mainly local-focused ─ including PhySci. The CSE showed positive growth

compared to the negative growth of the GSE. There were no noticeable changes in productivity/impact

among the most prolific researchers before and after receiving the AAEP. CSE-affiliated institutions with

the highest betweenness are either local or international reputable institutions ─ in some cases, multiple

Nobel awarded. At the direct coauthorship level, only two researchers published an article with a GSE

member. Most of the research profiles reflected the national output priorities, but when research fronts are

taken into consideration, the strategic research capacities diverge from the national focus. The composite

indicator produced an enriching comparison by showing the scope and reach of Colombian researchers’

scientific impact in his/her disciplinary area, even when Nobel laureates are placed in the same

assessment framework. The interleaving of the CSE and the GSE ─ particularly between the 3rd and 2nd

quartiles ─ enabled a more nuanced analysis. Our findings shed light on the research performance-impact

standards and agenda between the global North and South and provide an in-context assessment of

outstanding local research.

Further research could source other scientific elites (e.g., Royal Society Africa Prize, Highest

Science and Technology Award, China; Prêmio Almirante Álavaro Alberto, Brazil), thereby deepening

the understanding of research impact and structure in the context of developing regions/countries.

Sourcing bibliographic data from search engines/databases with more comprehensive coverage ─ such as

Google Scholar or Dimensions ─ could expand researchers’ impact and inclusion with no publications in

Scopus or WoS. The inclusion of altmetrics could provide another perspective: on elites that lie beyond

the academic community, such as public debates conducted via social media.

References

1. Roberts RJ. Ten Simple Rules to Win a Nobel Prize. PLOS Comput Biol. 2015;11: e1004084.

doi:10.1371/JOURNAL.PCBI.1004084

2. Stephan PE, Levin SG. Age and the Nobel prize revisited. Scientometrics. 1993;28: 387–399.

doi:10.1007/BF02026517

3. Kademani BS, Kalyane VL, Kumar V, Mohan L. Nobel laureates: Their publication productivity,

collaboration and authorship status. Scientometrics. 2005;62: 261–268. doi:10.1007/s11192-005-

0019-3

4. Heinze T, Jappe A, Pithan D. From North American hegemony to global competition for

scientific leadership? Insights from the Nobel population. PLoS One. 2019;14.

34

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0213916

5. Bjørk R. The journals in physics that publish Nobel Prize research. Scientometrics. 2020;122:

817–823. doi:10.1007/s11192-019-03312-8

6. Kosmulski M. Nobel laureates are not hot. Scientometrics. 2020;123: 487–495.

doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03378-9

7. Ioannidis JPA, Cristea I-A, Boyack KW. Work honored by Nobel prizes clusters heavily in a few

scientific fields. PLoS One. 2020;15: 1–11. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0234612

8. Sebastian Y, Chen C. The boundary-spanning mechanisms of Nobel Prize winning papers. PLoS

One. 2021;16: 1–31. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0254744

9. Zuckerman H. Stratification in American Science. Sociol Inq. 1970;40: 235–257.

doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.1970.tb01010.x

10. Zuckerman H. Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States. Free Press. New York: Free

Press; 1977. doi:10.1177/027046769701700446

11. Li J, Yin Y, Fortunato S, Wang D. Scientific elite revisited: Patterns of productivity,

collaboration, authorship and impact. J R Soc Interface. 2020;17. doi:10.1098/rsif.2020.0135

12. Li J, Yin Y, Fortunato S, Wang D. Nobel laureates are almost the same as us. Nat Rev Phys.

2019;1: 301–303. doi:10.1038/s42254-019-0057-z

13. Ma Y, Uzzi B. Scientific prize network predicts who pushes the boundaries of science. Proc Natl

Acad Sci. 2018;115: 12608–12615. doi:10.1073/pnas.1800485115

14. Karazija R, Momkauskaite A. The Nobel prize in physics - Regularities and tendencies.

Scientometrics. 2004;61: 191–205. doi:10.1023/B:SCIE.0000041648.87075.de

15. Ioannidis JPA, Boyack KW, Small H, Sorensen AA, Klavans R. Is your most cited work your

best? Nature Publishing Group; 2014 Oct 30 pp. 561–562. doi:10.1038/514561a

16. Merton R. The matthew effect in science. Science (80- ). 1968;159: 56–62.

doi:10.1126/science.159.3810.56

17. Merton R. The Matthew Effect in Science, II: Cumulative Advantage and the Symbolism of

Intellectual Property. Isis. 1988;79: 606–623. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/234750

18. Zheng J, Liu N. Mapping of important international academic awards. Scientometrics. 2015;104:

763–791. doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1613-7

19. Larivière V, Macaluso B, Archambault É, Gingras Y. Which scientific elites? On the

concentration of research funds, publications and citations. Res Eval. 2010;19: 45–53.

doi:10.3152/095820210X492495

20. Jin Y, Yuan S, Shao Z, Hall W, Tang J. Turing Award elites revisited: patterns of productivity,

collaboration, authorship and impact. Scientometrics. 2021;126: 2329–2348. doi:10.1007/s11192-

020-03860-4

21. Campanario JM. Rejecting and resisting Nobel class discoveries: Accounts by Nobel Laureates.

Scientometrics. 2009;81: 549–565. doi:10.1007/s11192-008-2141-5

22. Gingras Y, Wallace ML. Why it has become more difficult to predict Nobel Prize winners: A

bibliometric analysis of nominees and winners of the chemistry and physics prizes (1901-2007).


23. Ma C, Su C, Yuan J, Wu Y. Papers written by Nobel Prize winners in physics before they won

the prize: An analysis of their language and journal of publication. Scientometrics. 2012;93:

1151–1163. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0748-z

24. Bjork S, Offer A, Söderberg G. Time series citation data: The Nobel Prize in economics.


25. Dernis H, Squicciarini M, de Pinho R. Detecting the emergence of technologies and the evolution

and co-development trajectories in science (DETECTS): a ‘burst’ analysis-based approach. J

Technol Transf. 2016;41: 930–960. doi:10.1007/s10961-015-9449-0

26. Wagner CS, Horlings E, Whetsell TA, Mattsson P, Nordqvist K. Do Nobel Laureates Create

Prize-Winning Networks? An Analysis of Collaborative Research in Physiology or Medicine.

PLoS One. 2015;10: 1–13. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0134164

27. Chan HF, Önder AS, Torgler B. The first cut is the deepest: repeated interactions of coauthorship

and academic productivity in Nobel laureate teams. Scientometrics. 2016;106: 509–524.

doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1796-y

28. Price DDS. A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. J Am Soc

Inf Sci. 1976;27: 292–306. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630270505

29. Garfield E, Welljams-Dorof A. Of Nobel class: A citation perspective on high impact research

authors. Theor Med. 1992;13: 117–135. doi:10.1007/BF02163625

30. The Nobel Foundation. All Nobel Prizes in Physics. 2020. Available:

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/lists/all-nobel-prizes-in-physics/

35

31. King DA. The scientific impact of nations. Nature. 2004;430: 311–316. doi:10.1038/430311a

32. Prathap G. Scientific wealth and inequality within nations. Scientometrics. 2017;113: 923–928.

doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2511-y

33. Schlagberger EM, Bornmann L, Bauer J. At what institutions did Nobel laureates do their prize-

winning work? An analysis of biographical information on Nobel laureates from 1994 to 2014.


34. Nielsen MW, Andersen JP. Global citation inequality is on the rise. Proc Natl Acad Sci.

2021;118: e2012208118. doi:10.1073/pnas.2012208118

35. Pouris A. Scientometric research in South Africa and successful policy instruments.


36. Gonzalez-Brambila CN, Reyes-Gonzalez L, Veloso F, Perez-Angón MA. The Scientific Impact

of Developing Nations. PLoS One. 2016;11: 1–14. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0151328

37. Cortés-Sánchez JD. Innovation in Latin America through the lens of bibliometrics: crammed and

fading away. Scientometrics. 2019;121: 869–895. doi:10.1007/s11192-019-03201-0

38. Inönü E. The influence of cultural factors on scientific production. Scientometrics. 2003;56: 137–

146. doi:10.1023/A:1021906925642

39. Klavans R, Boyack KW. The Research Focus of Nations: Economic vs. Altruistic Motivations.

PLoS One. 2017;12: 1–27. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0169383

40. Cortés-Sánchez JD. A bibliometric outlook of the most cited documents in business, management

and accounting in Ibero-America. Eur Res Manag Bus Econ. 2020;26: 1–8.

doi:10.1016/j.iedeen.2019.12.003

41. SCImago. SJR - International Science Ranking. 2020 [cited 12 Jan 2021]. Available:

https://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php?order=ci&ord=desc

42. Clarivate Analytics. Recipients - Highly Cited. 2020 [cited 12 Jan 2021]. Available:

https://recognition.webofscience.com/awards/highly-cited/2020/

43. Dinero. El Premio Nobel Colombiano. 2000 [cited 6 Aug 2020]. Available:

https://www.dinero.com/agenda-publica/edicion-impresa/articulo/el-premio-nobel-

colombiano/10268

44. Faciolince HA. La Fundación Alejandro Ángel Escobar. In: Forero C, editor. Fundación

Alejandro Ángel Escobar - 50 Años. Bogotá: Fundación Alejandro Ángel Escobar; 2007. pp. 87–

98.

45. Fundación Alejandro Ángel Escobar. Home. [cited 6 Aug 2020]. Available:

https://www.faae.org.co/premios

46. Cortés JD, Guix M, Carbonell KB. Innovation for Sustainability in the Global South:

Bibliometric findings from management & business and STEM (Science, Technology,

Engineering and Mathematics) fields in developing countries. Heliyon. 2021;7: e07809.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07809

47. Confraria H, Mira Godinho M, Wang L. Determinants of citation impact: A comparative analysis

of the Global South versus the Global North. Res Policy. 2017;46: 265–279.

doi:10.1016/j.respol.2016.11.004

48. Thelwall M. Trend of African scientific output and impact 1996- 2015. African J Libr Arch Inf

Sci. 2017;27: 131–143.

49. González-Alcaide G, Park J, Huamaní C, Ramos JM. Dominance and leadership in research

activities: Collaboration between countries of differing human development is reflected through

authorship order and designation as corresponding authors in scientific publications. PLoS One.

2017;12. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0182513

50. Fundación Alejandro Ángel Escobar. Fundación Alejandro Ángel Escobar - 50 Años. Forero C,

editor. Bogotá: Fundación Alejandro Ángel Escobar; 2007.

51. Zhou Z, Xing R, Liu J, Xing F. Landmark papers written by the Nobelists in physics from 1901 to

2012: A bibliometric analysis of their citations and journals. Scientometrics. 2014;100: 329–338.

doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1306-7

52. Ioannidis JPA, Klavans R, Boyack KW. Multiple Citation Indicators and Their Composite across

Scientific Disciplines. PLoS Biol. 2016;14: 1–17. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002501

53. Morgan AC, Economou DJ, Way SF, Clauset A. Prestige drives epistemic inequality in the

diffusion of scientific ideas. EPJ Data Sci. 2018;7: 40. doi:10.1140/epjds/s13688-018-0166-4

54. Waltman L. A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics.

Elsevier Ltd; 2016. pp. 365–391. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.007

55. Schreiber M. A modification of the h-index: The hm-index accounts for multi-authored

manuscripts. J Informetr. 2008;2: 211–216. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2008.05.001

56. Maflahi N, Thelwall M. Domestic researchers with longer careers generate higher average

36

citation impact but it does not increase over time. Quant Sci Stud. 2021;2: 560–587.

doi:10.1162/qss_a_00132

57. Kademani BS, Kalyane VL, Jange S. Scientometric portrait of Nobel laureate Dorothy Crowfoot

Hodgkin. Scientometrics. 1999;45: 233–250. doi:10.1007/BF02458435

58. Doi H, Heeren A, Maurage P. Scientific activity is a better predictor of nobel award chances than

dietary habits and economic factors. PLoS One. 2014;9. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0092612

59. Fields C. Close to the edge: co-authorship proximity of Nobel laureates in Physiology or

Medicine, 1991–2010, to cross-disciplinary brokers. Scientometrics. 2015;103: 267–299.

doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1526-5

60. Wu L, Wang D, Evans JA. Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology.

Nature. 2019;566: 378–382. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-0941-9

61. Jiang F, Liu NC. New wine in old bottles? Examining institutional hierarchy in laureate mobility

networks, 1900–2017. Scientometrics. 2020;125: 1291–1304. doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03477-7

62. Quacquarelli Symonds. QS World University Rankings 2019: Top Global Universities. 2020

[cited 9 Jun 2020]. Available: https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-

university-rankings/2019

63. Villaveces JL, Forero-Pineda C. Cincuenta años de ciencia en Colombia. In: Forero-Pineda C,

editor. Fundación Alejandro Ángel Escobar - 50 Años2. Bogotá, Colombia: Fundación Alejandro

Ángel Escobar; 2007. pp. 97–133.

64. Lunnemann P, Jensen MH, Jauffred L. Gender bias in Nobel prizes. Palgrave Commun 2019 51.

2019;5: 1–4. doi:10.1057/s41599-019-0256-3

65. Minciencias. Plataforma SCIENTI - Colombia | Minciencias. 2021 [cited 16 Mar 2021].

Available: https://minciencias.gov.co/scienti

66. Baas J, Schotten M, Plume A, Côté G, Karimi R. Scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric

data source for academic research in quantitative science studies. Quant Sci Stud. 2020;1: 377–

386. doi:10.1162/qss_a_00019

67. Mongeon P, Paul-Hus A. The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative

analysis. Scientometrics. 2016;106: 213–228. doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5

68. Waltman L, Larivière V. Special issue on bibliographic data sources. Quant Sci Stud. 2020;1:

360–362. doi:10.1162/qss_e_00026

69. Hou J, Zheng B, Zhang Y, Chen C. How do Price medalists’ scholarly impact change before and

after their awards? Scientometrics. 2021;126: 5945–5981. doi:10.1007/s11192-021-03979-y

70. Kulczycki E, Engels TCE, Pölönen J, Bruun K, Dušková M, Guns R, et al. Publication patterns in

the social sciences and humanities: evidence from eight European countries. Scientometrics.

2018;116: 463–486. doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2711-0

71. Lisée C, Larivière V, Archambault É. Conference proceedings as a source of scientific

information: A bibliometric analysis. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2008;59: 1776–1784.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20888

72. Tollefson J. China declared world’s largest producer of scientific articles. Nature. 2018;553: 390.

doi:10.1038/d41586-018-00927-4

73. Larivière V, Gingras Y, Archambault É. Canadian collaboration networks: A comparative

analysis of the natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities. Scientometrics. 2006;68:

519–533. doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0127-8

74. Thelwall M, Fairclough R. All downhill from the PhD? The typical impact trajectory of U.S.

academic careers. Quant Sci Stud. 2020;1: 1334–1348. doi:10.1162/qss_a_00072

75. Scopus. Scopus - Document search. 2020 [cited 1 Jun 2020]. Available:

https://www.scopus.com/search/form.uri?display=basic

76. Aria M, Cuccurullo C. bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J

Informetr. 2017;11: 959–975. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007

77. Doerfel ML, Barnett GA. A Semantic Network Analysis of the International Communication

Association. Hum Commun Res. 1999;25: 589–603. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1999.tb00463.x

78. Blondel VD, Guillaume J-L, Lambiotte R, Lefebvre E. Fast unfolding of communities in large

networks. J Stat Mech Theory Exp. 2008;2008: P10008.

79. Scott J, Carrington P, editors. The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis. London, UK:

SAGE Publications Ltd.; 2014. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446294413

80. Opsahl T, Agneessens F, Skvoretz J. Node centrality in weighted networks: Generalizing degree

and shortest paths. Soc Networks. 2010;32: 245–251. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2010.03.006

81. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for

Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2014.

pp. 1–2667. Available: online: http://www. R-project. org

37

82. Scott J. Social Network Analysis. Sociology. 1988;22: 109–127.

doi:10.1177/0038038588022001007

83. Gozzard A, Ward M, Datta A. Converting a network into a small-world network: Fast algorithms

for minimizing average path length through link addition. Inf Sci (Ny). 2018;422: 282–289.

doi:10.1016/J.INS.2017.09.020

84. Traag VA, Waltman L, Eck NJ van. From Louvain to Leiden: guaranteeing well-connected

communities. Sci Reports 2019 91. 2019;9: 1–12. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-41695-z

85. Kessler MM. Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. Am Doc. 1963;14: 10–25.

doi:10.1002/asi.5090140103

86. Börner K. Atlas of Science: Visualizing what we know. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press;

2010.

87. Liu R. A new bibliographic coupling measure with descriptive capability. Scientometrics.

2017;110: 915–935. doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2196-7

88. Gómez-Núñez AJ, Batagelj V, Vargas-Quesada B, Moya-Anegón F, Chinchilla-Rodríguez Z.

Optimizing SCImago Journal & Country Rank classification by community detection. J

Informetr. 2014;8: 369–383. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2014.01.011

89. Boyack KW, Klavans R. Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which

citation approach represents the research front most accurately? J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol.

2010;61: 2389–2404. doi:10.1002/asi.21419

90. Scopus. What are Scopus subject area categories and ASJC codes? [cited 24 Aug 2021].

Available: https://service.elsevier.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/12007/supporthub/scopus/

91. Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S

A. 2005;102: 16569–16572. doi:10.1073/pnas.0507655102

92. Schreiber M. To share the fame in a fair way,hmmodifieshfor multi-authored manuscripts. New J

Phys. 2008;10: 40201. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/10/4/040201

93. Weber M. The effects of listing authors in alphabetical order: A review of the empirical evidence.

Res Eval. 2018;27: 238–245. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvy008

94. Sekara V, Deville P, Ahnert SE, Barabási AL, Sinatra R, Lehmann S. The chaperone effect in

scientific publishing. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115: 12603–12607.

doi:10.1073/pnas.1800471115

95. Bastian M, Heymann S, Jacomy M. Gephi: an open source software for exploring and

manipulating networks. International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. 2009.

Available: https://gephi.org/users/publications/

96. The igraph core team. igraph – Network analysis software. 2019. Available: https://igraph.org/

97. Benoit et. al. Quantitative Analysis of Textual Data. London, UK: CRAN; 2020.

98. Scopus. Scopus Roadmap: What’s coming up in 2020 & 2021? 2020 [cited 1 Feb 2021].

Available: https://blog.scopus.com/posts/scopus-roadmap-whats-coming-up-in-2020-2021

99. Wagner CS, Horlings E, Whetsell TA, Mattsson P, Nordqvist K. Do nobel laureates create prize-

winning networks? An analysis of collaborative research in physiology or medicine. PLoS One.

2015;10. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0134164

100. Abramo G, D’Angelo CA, Murgia G. The combined effects of age and seniority on research

performance of full professors. Sci Public Policy. 2016;43: 301–319. doi:10.1093/scipol/scv037

101. Diamandis EP. Nobelitis: A common disease among Nobel laureates? Clin Chem Lab Med.

2013;51: 1573–1574. doi:10.1515/cclm-2013-0273

102. Bloom N, Jones CI, Reenen J Van, Webb M, Acemoglu D, Aghion P, et al. Are Ideas Getting

Harder to Find? †. Am Econ Rev. 1970;2020: 1104–1144. doi:10.1257/aer.20180338

103. Gordon RJ. Is U.S. Economic Growth Over? Faltering Innovation Confronts the Six Headwinds.

Cambridge, MA; 2012 Aug. doi:10.3386/W18315

104. Bornmann L, Mutz R. Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the

number of publications and cited references. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2015;66: 2215–2222.

doi:10.1002/asi.23329

105. Wei G. A bibliometric analysis of the top five economics journals during 2012-2016. J Econ

Surv. 2019;33: 25–59. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12260

106. Thorndike EL. A constant error in psychological ratings. J Appl Psychol. 1920;4: 25–29.

doi:10.1037/H0071663

107. OCyT. Indicadores de ciencia y tecnología. Bogotá; 2020. Available: https://ocyt.org.co/wp-

content/uploads/2021/06/indicadores-2019.pdf

108. Fortin J-M, Currie DJ. Big Science vs. Little Science: How Scientific Impact Scales with

Funding. PLoS One. 2013;8: 1–9. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0065263

109. Prell C. Linking Social Capital to Small-Worlds: A Look at Local and Network-Level Processes

38

and Structure. Methodol Innov Online. 2009;4: 8–22. doi:10.1177/205979910900400102

110. Fanelli D, Glänzel W. Bibliometric Evidence for a Hierarchy of the Sciences. PLoS One. 2013;8:

e66938. Available: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066938

111. Martín-Martín A, Thelwall M, Orduna-Malea E, Delgado López-Cózar E. Google Scholar,

Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a

multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations. Scientometrics. 2021;126: 871–906.

doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4

112. Nakamura, M; Pendlebury, D; Schnell, J; Szomszor M. Navigating the Structure of Research on

Sustainable Development Goals - Web of Science Group. Philadelphia; 2019. Available:

https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/campaigns/sustainable-development-goals/

113. Guevara MR, Hartmann D, Aristarán M, Mendoza M, Hidalgo CA. The research space: using

career paths to predict the evolution of the research output of individuals, institutions, and

nations. Scientometrics. 2016;109: 1695–1709. doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2125-9

114. Meneghini R, Packer AL, Nassi-Calò L. Articles by Latin American Authors in Prestigious

Journals Have Fewer Citations. PLoS One. 2008;3: 1–4. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003804

Appendices Appendix 1 Higher/last academic degree by country and university

University by country Higher/last academic degree

Total PhD Bachelor Master Medical specialty

ARG Argentina 1 1

U. Plata 1

1

BEL Belgium 2 1 3

U. Cath. Louvain

1 1

Vrije U. Brussel 2

2

BRA Brazil 2 1 3

F. Oswaldo Cruz 1

1

IMPA 1

1

U. Sao Paulo

1

1

CAN Canada 1 1

U. Montreal 1

1

CHL Chile 1 1

U. Chile

1

1

COL Colombia 11 1 11 1 24

U. Andes

2

2

U. Antioquia 1

1 1 3

U. Militar

1

1

U. Nacional 6

5

11

U. Rosario 1

1

U. Sabana 1

1

U. Valle 1

1

2

U. Ind. Santander

1

1

U.P. Javeriana 1

1

2

DEU Germany 1 1

U. Hannover 1

1

DNK Denmark 1 1

Aarhus U. 1

1

ESP Spain 8 8

U. Autonoma de Madrid 1

1

U. Barcelona 1

1

U. Comp. Madrid 1

1

U. Granada 2

2

U. Laguna 1

1

U. Politec. Catalunya 1

1

U. Sant. Comp. 1

1

39

FRA France 4 4

Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences

Sociales 1

1

U. Paris-III 1

1

U. Paris-VII 1

1

U. Paris-X 1

1

GBR United Kingdom of Great Britain and

Northern Ireland 3 3

U. London 1

1

U. Oxford 1

1

U. Warwick 1

1

MEX Mexico 1 1

IPN 1

1

NLD Netherlands 5 5

Agricultural U. - Wageningen 1

1

U. Amsterdam 4

4

SWE Sweden 1 1

Uppsala U. 1

1

USA United States of America 24 3 27

Harvard U. 1

1

Johns Hopkins U.

1

1

Michigan State U. 1

1

MIT 2

2

New School For Social Research 2

2

State U. New York 2

2

Syracuse U. 1

1

Tulane U. 1

1

U. Florida 2

2

U. Maryland 1

1

U. Massachusetts 2

2

U. Mississippi

1

1

U. Missouri 1

1

U. Nebraska 1

1

U. Penn 1

1

U. Pittsburgh 1

1

U. Wisconsin-Madison 2

2

UC Irvine 1

1

Virginia Tech 2

2

Yale U.

1

1

NA 3

Total general 65 1 16 2 87

Source: the authors based on [65] and personal websites.

The Colombian Scientific Elite - Science Mapping and ... - arXiv

Documents

Transcript of The Colombian Scientific Elite - Science Mapping and ... - arXiv